Skip to main content
UC Logo
Libraries | Ask the Libraries

Research Impact, Citation Analysis & Altmetrics

This guide provides information on assessing the impact of research and HSL resources available for citation analysis.

Selected References

Selected Readings Below

Altmetrics

  • Bar--‐Ilan J, Haustein S, Peters I, Priem J, Shema H, et al. (2012) Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. arXiv:12055611. Available:http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611. Accessed 1 September 2012.
  • Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., Bettencourt, L., Chute, R., et al. (2009). Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS ONE. 4:e4803. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004803.
  • Eysenbach, G. (2012). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13. Doi:10.2196/jmir.2012.
  • Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the Way We Measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2013.01.003
  • Li X, Thelwall M, Giustini D(2011) Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 91: 461–471. doi:10.1007/s11192--‐011--‐0580--‐x.
  • Piwowar, H. (2013) Altmetrics: What, Why and Where? ASIS&T Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr13/AprMay13_Piwowar.html
  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact (arXiv e-print No. 1203.4745). Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745
  • Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48753. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048753
  • Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations. PLoS ONE 7(11): e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523
  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841

Caveats and Cautions

  • Abbott, A., et al. (2010).  Do metrics matter? Nature, 465(7300), 860-862. 
     
  • Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2008).  Citation statistics: a report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in coopeeration with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Berlin: International Mathematical Union.   http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
     
  • Arnold, D.N. (2008). Integrity under attack: the state of scholarly publishing.  [Talk of the Society editorial] SIAM News 42(10).
     
  • Ball, P. (2008). A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 455(7211), 274-275. 
     
  • Browman, H.I., & Stergiou, K.I. (Eds.) (2008).  Use and misuse of bibliometrics indices in evaluating scholarly performance [Special Issue]. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1).  http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esep/v8/n1/ 
     
  • Laloe, F., & Mosseri, R. (2009).  Bibliometric evaluation of individual researchers: not even right ... not even wrong.  Europhysics News, 40(5), 26-29.  http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2009/05/epn20095p26.pdf 
     
  • Opatrny, T. (2008).  Playing the system to give low impact journal more clout.  Nature, 455(7210), 167.
     
  • Pudovkin, A.I., & Garfield, E. (2004).  Rank-normalized impact factor: a way to compare journal performance across subject categories.  Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 41, 507-515. 

Comparisons

  • Gray, E., & Hodkinson, S.Z. (2008, Summer).  Comparison of Journal Citation Reports and Scopus imact factors and environmental siences journals.   Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, Issue 54, Article 1.   http://www.istl.org/08-summer/article1.html 
     
  • Kulkami, A.V., et al. (2009).  Comparison of citation in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092.  
     
  • Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007).  Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS facutly: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar.  Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125. 
     
  • Podlubny, I., & Kassayova, I. (2006).  Towards a better list of citation superstars: compiling a multidisciplinary list of highly cited researchers.  Research Evaluation, 15(3), 154-169. 
     
  • Van Noorden, R. (2010).  Metrics: a profusion of measures.  Nature, 465(7300), 864-866. 

    Van Aalst, J. (2010).  Using Google Scholar to estimate the impact of journal articles in education.  Educational Researcher, 39(5), 387-400. 

For Librarians

  • Ladwig, J.P., & Sommese, A.J. (2005). Using cited half-life to adjust download statistics.  College & Reserch Libraries, 66, 527-542.
     
  • Wagner, A.B. (2009, Spring).  Percentile-based journal impact factors: a neglected collection development metric.  Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Issue 57, Referred Article 1.  http://www.istl.org/09-spring/refereed1.html
     

History and Background

  • Garfield, E. (1997).  Concept of citation indexing: a unique and innovative tool for navigating the research literature.  Retrieved Jully 22, 2008, from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/vladivostok.html
     
  • Garfield, E. (2006).  The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.  JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93.
  • Garfield, E. (2007).  The evolution of the Science Citation Index.  International Microbiology, 10(1), 65-69.
     
  • Moed, J.F. (2005).  Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer. 
     

Other Indices and Methodologies

  • Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegon, F. (2009).  The SJR indictor: a new indicator of journals' scientific prestige.  Tech. Rep. arxiv:abs/0912.4141, retrieved June 11, 2010 from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.4141.pdf
     
  • Priem, J., & Hemminger B.M. (2010).  Scientometrics 2.0: toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15(7), article 2.  http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570
     
  • Rovner, S.L. (2008).  The import of impact: new types of journal metrics grow more influential in the scientific community.  Chemcial and Engineering News, 86(20), 39-42.  http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/86/8621sci1.html
     
  • Schreiber, M. (2008a).  An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, adn the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), 1513-1522.
  • Schreiber, M. (2008b).  The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe's g index.  Scientometrics, 76(1), 187-200.
     
  • Van Leeuwen, T. (2008).  Testing the validity of the Hersch-index for research assessment purposes.  Research Evaluation, 17(2), 157-160.  

University of Cincinnati Libraries

PO Box 210033 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0033

Phone: 513-556-1424

Contact Us | Staff Directory

University of Cincinnati

Alerts | Clery and HEOA Notice | Notice of Non-Discrimination | eAccessibility Concern | Privacy Statement | Copyright Information

© 2019 University of Cincinnati